Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lookinforinfo
      CPM/BW ANPR PCN Claimform - The Collective London Nw10 6Ff

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • dx100uk
      PCM vanishing windscreen PCN - Royale Leisure Park - W3 (London)

      By dx100uk · Posted

      it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
    • dx100uk
      Perch/TM PAPLOC - old Oakbrook PDL

      By dx100uk · Posted

      Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space) guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) but dont get scammed into a DMP. simply tell whomever you call to simply apply for the BS for you.  
    • dx100uk
      Lowell/Overdales Claimform - old Cap1 Debt

      By dx100uk · Posted

      totally immaterial. time to now start reading up. Programmable Search Engine (google.com) Clickme^^^ do not miss your defence filing date no matter what dx  
    • dx100uk
      Lowell/Overdales Claimform - Paypal Credit

      By dx100uk · Posted

      Programmable Search Engine CSE.GOOGLE.COM clickme^^

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Restriction K's

Ellison50

By Ellison50
in General Legal Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4658 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
What annoys me is that the creditor is granted the CO on unsecured debt to make it 'equitable' and then sells the debt on. By selling the debt for less than the CCJ amount it should lose that equitable status as they are no longer securing the debt against default, having sold it. The buyer hasn't paid the creditor the full amount and so the situation is inequitable now, i.e. it is secured to allow the buyer to make a profit, not to cover their losses. :-x

 

Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

butts

butts

Posted
Posted
Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name

 

Are you now stuck with the original Creditor for the duration of the debt -ie they can't sell it with a CO as described above.

 

Is this an advantage as DCA'S often offer a far lower settlement figure than the original creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
Are you now stuck with the original Creditor for the duration of the debt -ie they can't sell it with a CO as described above.

 

Is this an advantage as DCA'S often offer a far lower settlement figure than the original creditor.

 

Sequenci will probably know the answer to this (sorry I don't)

 

However, I can't see why you would be as DCA's only offer lower settlements because they have bought the debt at a fraction of it's value for the risk they take in getting anything back.

 

Logically, given the reduced certainty Restrictions give creditors, I would have thought the OC would have wanted to have got shot of these even faster (and therefore sold off cheaper to a DCA)

 

Only my opinion though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted (edited)
Are you now stuck with the original Creditor for the duration of the debt -ie they can't sell it with a CO as described above.

 

Is this an advantage as DCA'S often offer a far lower settlement figure than the original creditor.

DCA's buy debts from the original creditor with the stipulation that they are eligible accounts. That is to say, an eligible account is one where the debt is not being collected or enforced on behalf of the original creditor, and is not subject to any collection or contingency arrangement, or is not been the subject of a CCJ.

The normal practice in county court proceedings is for the Claimant DCA to redact (black out-conceal) all the information regarding whether or not it is an eligble account, and the normal practice is that the legal system permits them to do this unchallenged.

The normal practice is also that 99.9 % of the population has no idea that this is the normal practice. - which is why it continues unchallenged.

Edited by toymaker1
Link to post
Share on other sites
butts

butts

Posted
Posted
DCA's buy debts from the original creditor with the stipulation that they are eligible accounts. That is to say, an eligible account is one where the debt is not being collected or enforced on behalf of the original creditor, and is not subject to any collection or contingency arrangement, or is not been the subject of a CCJ.

The normal practice in county court proceedings is for the Claimant DCA to redact (black out-conceal) all the information regarding whether or not it is an eligble account, and the normal practice is that the legal system permits them to do this unchallenged.

The normal practice is also that 99.9 % of the population has no idea that this is the normal practice. - which is why it continues unchallenged.

 

I have had debts sold by the original creditor to a DCA when they have been receiving REGULAR PAYMENTS via my DMP which they have agreed to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OnMyWayOut

OnMyWayOut

Posted
Posted
Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name
When did this change? I've got a CO debt that has now changed hands twice since the CO was granted about three years ago.
Link to post
Share on other sites
OnMyWayOut

OnMyWayOut

Posted
Posted
I have had debts sold by the original creditor to a DCA when they have been receiving REGULAR PAYMENTS via my DMP which they have agreed to.
Likewise, at least two debts in a DMP were sold on whilst there was no lapse in payments under the plan. The other one that resulted in a CO was also up to date in a DMP when the OC got greedy and demanded higher payments and went for a CCJ.
Link to post
Share on other sites
robbie2009

robbie2009

Posted
Posted
When did this change? I've got a CO debt that has now changed hands twice since the CO was granted about three years ago.

 

The 'new' rules re: charging orders came in on 2003, I think it was around April time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbie2009

robbie2009

Posted
Posted
Likewise, at least two debts in a DMP were sold on whilst there was no lapse in payments under the plan. The other one that resulted in a CO was also up to date in a DMP when the OC got greedy and demanded higher payments and went for a CCJ.

 

As far as I was aware debts can be passed to a new 'creditor' at any point, regardless of whether the instalments have been breached, a DMP is in place, and if a CCJ/CO has been obtained. A recently example of this happening en-masse is with the purchase of the Egg portfolio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
As far as I was aware debts can be passed to a new 'creditor' at any point, regardless of whether the instalments have been breached, a DMP is in place, and if a CCJ/CO has been obtained. A recently example of this happening en-masse is with the purchase of the Egg portfolio.

I note you say "as far as you are aware" That is my point - as far as 99.9 % of the population are aware, that situation is as you describe, but in reality, it is normal in county court credit card debt proceedings for the DCA Claimant to black out any reference in their witness statements or particulars of claim etc, as to whether the account in question is an "eligble account" that is tos say, an account which is eligble to be sold on by the original creditor. The definition of an eliguble account is one which has no legal claim or other lien upon it, and is not tbe subject of a current dispute, or being collected by a DCA. - If you check out those sale agreements between the original creditor and the DCA buyer, you will find that is the case.

Naturaly they dont want you to know, so they black it out. It has become a convention that the courts just seem to accept, and no one challenges it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
When did this change? I've got a CO debt that has now changed hands twice since the CO was granted about three years ago.

 

Robbie2009 has given the correct reply but, just to clarify, I am not saying the debt can't be sold over to a DCA as I don't know that info?

 

Hopefully someone like Sequenci will clarify the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
I note you say "as far as you are aware" That is my point - as far as 99.9 % of the population are aware, that situation is as you describe, but in reality, it is normal in county court credit card debt proceedings for the DCA Claimant to black out any reference in their witness statements or particulars of claim etc, as to whether the account in question is an "eligble account" that is tos say, an account which is eligble to be sold on by the original creditor. The definition of an eliguble account is one which has no legal claim or other lien upon it, and is not tbe subject of a current dispute, or being collected by a DCA. - If you check out those sale agreements between the original creditor and the DCA buyer, you will find that is the case.

Naturaly they dont want you to know, so they black it out. It has become a convention that the courts just seem to accept, and no one challenges it.

 

Very interesting information!

 

Have you any examples where this had been challenged and what happens when it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
shazzyball

shazzyball

Posted
Posted

hi eggboxy,

 

still waiting for the original agreement before we can proceed with any action. I believe that blackhorse sold the debt on to hillesden after they secured a charge. I assume they (hillesdens) have bought the debt for a fraction of the cost. I have asked them for all the paperwork in relation to this matter and have asked for proof they have the right to this charging order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted
hi eggboxy,

 

still waiting for the original agreement before we can proceed with any action. I believe that blackhorse sold the debt on to hillesden after they secured a charge. I assume they (hillesdens) have bought the debt for a fraction of the cost. I have asked them for all the paperwork in relation to this matter and have asked for proof they have the right to this charging order.

 

Hi shazzyball

 

Thanks for the update and please keep us informed!

 

Have you contacted the Solicitors Sequenci suggested in Brum?

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
Very interesting information!

 

Have you any examples where this had been challenged and what happens when it is?

I have no examples where it has been challenged. -Although it should be. There is no right to conceal such information, but they do, and it goes unchallenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
I note you say "as far as you are aware" That is my point - as far as 99.9 % of the population are aware, that situation is as you describe, but in reality, it is normal in county court credit card debt proceedings for the DCA Claimant to black out any reference in their witness statements or particulars of claim etc, as to whether the account in question is an "eligble account" that is tos say, an account which is eligble to be sold on by the original creditor. The definition of an eliguble account is one which has no legal claim or other lien upon it, and is not tbe subject of a current dispute, or being collected by a DCA. - If you check out those sale agreements between the original creditor and the DCA buyer, you will find that is the case.

Naturaly they dont want you to know, so they black it out. It has become a convention that the courts just seem to accept, and no one challenges it.

 

This is really interesting. It's not an area I'll profess to know a great deal about in the slightest. Surely a creditor can pass or sell a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925? What is there to stop it? I'm no expert in this field but very willing to learn as much as I can :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
This is really interesting. It's not an area I'll profess to know a great deal about in the slightest. Surely a creditor can pass or sell a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925? What is there to stop it? I'm no expert in this field but very willing to learn as much as I can :)

 

Thats how I understand it too, debts can be sold under the LoP 1925, the bit about not selling debts which are disputed I believe comes from the OFT guidelines and fit for purpose test of licence holders I suspect. CCJ/CO debts can be sold but as I understand it the CO/CCJ MUST be changed to the new owner by an application to the court... after all you are paying the CCJ/CO as the court instructed, if you fail by paying someone else you are surely in contempt of court.

 

It is a FACT that any contract between two parties will always contain clauses that protect both parties if the goods (in this case debts) become uncollectable so that the buyer is not left disadvantaged. Thus they'll be caveats in the contract to return those debts sold "mistakenly". But this contract wouldnt overrule the LoP 1925 which is well established statute law surely.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
This is really interesting. It's not an area I'll profess to know a great deal about in the slightest. Surely a creditor can pass or sell a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925? What is there to stop it? I'm no expert in this field but very willing to learn as much as I can :)

That's correct, there is nothing to stop a creditor selling a debt to whoever they like under the Law of Property Act 1925, provided it is an eligible account. That is a term which appears in every contract to sell/buy a debt between the original creditor and a DCA - you will see this in every county court case where a debt has been bought from the OC. But usually they conceal whether it is or is not an eligbile account, and they know that most people are not familiar with that term, because it only appears as a

term in the in house, private business contract between the original creditor and the DCA who is buyting it cheap. -Where the term appears in their evidential material they black it out, - they pull the wool over the court's eyes, and get away with it. The judge only deals with what is in front of him, and it is never challenged. - they say it is confidential business information, but is is no such thing.

 

 

 

 

 

so s

Link to post
Share on other sites
toymaker1

toymaker1

Posted
Posted
Thats how I understand it too, debts can be sold under the LoP 1925, the bit about not selling debts which are disputed I believe comes from the OFT guidelines and fit for purpose test of licence holders I suspect. CCJ/CO debts can be sold but as I understand it the CO/CCJ MUST be changed to the new owner by an application to the court... after all you are paying the CCJ/CO as the court instructed, if you fail by paying someone else you are surely in contempt of court.

 

It is a FACT that any contract between two parties will always contain clauses that protect both parties if the goods (in this case debts) become uncollectable so that the buyer is not left disadvantaged. Thus they'll be caveats in the contract to return those debts sold "mistakenly". But this contract wouldnt overrule the LoP 1925 which is well established statute law surely.

 

S.

It is nothing to do with OFT Guidance. What I am referring to is detailed clauses in the contract between the original creditor andd the DCA which is buying the debt. - Those contracts to sell/buy the debt always have a sspecific detailed clause covering the matter of whether the debt is an "eligible account" to be sold. - My point is that they prevent you, the debtor they are suing,from finding this information out.

If you found out that it was an ineligble account (to be sold on), that would make quite a difference to your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
It is nothing to do with OFT Guidance. What I am referring to is detailed clauses in the contract between the original creditor andd the DCA which is buying the debt. - Those contracts to sell/buy the debt always have a sspecific detailed clause covering the matter of whether the debt is an "eligible account" to be sold. - My point is that they prevent you, the debtor they are suing,from finding this information out.

If you found out that it was an ineligble account (to be sold on), that would make quite a difference to your case.

 

I was actually trying to answer multiple posts in one hence the comment about OFT guidelines and CO/CCJ's selling on...

 

As to your suggestion the contracts I've seen normally have the caveat of "to the best of their knowledge, the accounts are :-" and then the relevant clauses listed, eg. Free from legal proceedings/in dispute etc etc.. in fact I've seen a sales agreement on here today... surely its between the buyer and the seller whether to use the sanctions/remedies in the contract.. if the buyer chooses to accept the account even tho the criteria listed are not met surely thats a matter for the buyer to take up with the seller IF they wish. Wouldnt a judge see it that way?

 

AFAIR the LoP 1925 just states that a debt can be sold so long as the owner is the owner and that notification is given to the debtor so it would be down to the buyer whether they accept the sale or use the sanctions contained within the sales agreement?

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
robbie2009

robbie2009

Posted
Posted
My point is that they prevent you, the debtor they are suing,from finding this information out.

If you found out that it was an ineligble account (to be sold on), that would make quite a difference to your case.

 

Is there a legal definition that defines what would constitute an account that is eligible and one that is eligible? Is it in the statute books somewhere? Or case-law? I think this might be a very important area for us all to consider, it's certainly not something I have ever heard of before. This could be really interesting! Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaston Grimsdyke

Gaston Grimsdyke

Posted
Posted
AFAIR the LoP 1925 just states that a debt can be sold so long as the owner is the owner and that notification is given to the debtor so it would be down to the buyer whether they accept the sale or use the sanctions contained within the sales agreement?

 

S.

 

This. The issue of whether an account is "eligible" or not is a matter between the buyer and seller of the debt. The debt itself and the person owing it are mere commodities and, provided the required notices are given, it is a matter of fact that the debt has been transferred to the new owner. Whether it was "eligible" or not is not the concern of the debtor. The debt sale agreement is commercially sensitive and it's not surprising details are redacted. All that the new creditor is required to prove is that the debt was one of those purchased, whether it should have been purchased or not is neither here nor there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...